Please don't delete huge chucks of the page like that. First of all, the "age" question is already addressed in three places here on the talk page - did you read the discussion before editing? And if you claim the "19" info is incorrect please prove it - I've seen several sources that say 19 was the average age. It's just not cool to go around deleting information from articles when there is no need, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, so why don't you add some information to an existing page or create a new page, instead of tearing down existing articles? Thanks, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:23, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

Clarification

Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagersBRichtigen 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Heavenly voices

Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --TCochrane 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Reversion

Obviously if someone produced a work before becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--aschlafly 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? DRussell 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Karl Benz

I removed Karl Benz: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age (15), he "only" passed the entrance exam of the University of Karlsruhe. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --BRichtigen 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! Bugler 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Jesus

I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --Benp 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)

IQ Peak

Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.

To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).

Mary as "17"

Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --DinsdaleP 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--aschlafly 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --DinsdaleP 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)

It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). ETrundel 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. Birdie 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Bill Gates

A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --DinsdaleP 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Under further scrutiny, I have decided against including Bill Gates. What did he achieve at 13? computer skills, not a great achievement. Also, he has enough accolades, believes in the God of nothing (catch that prying eyes?), listed next to Anne, no way the two should reside together :) --Jpatt 20:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

remove some or move the page?

If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --Tim(CPAdmin1)talk 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)

12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. NormanS 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)

not really. It is more like saying that 4 is an odd number because it is close to 5 which is an odd number. --Tim(CPAdmin1)talk 20:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Roger Mason entry

The Roger Mason entry does not rise to the level of achievement of the others. Even if it was a meaningful discovery, which is dubious, we don't have the shepherd who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls and I don't see why would include Mason's "discovery" as a great achievement either.--Andy Schlafly 19:53, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Although I didn't add that entry, I did feel it was right to change it to state it as what some believed rather state it as scientific fact. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with your edit, and am suggesting that we go further and either toss the entry or downgrade it further in an appropriate way. It just does not rise to the level of, say, David slaying Goliath.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

OK, so I see there's been some discussion of Roger Mason. The point is that he didn't just stumble over some strange markings in the rock: he knew they were fossils and he knew the rocks were pre-Cambrian. His teenage open-mindedness led him to see what older, more closed-minded professors did not see. He had the confidence to go to a professor and tell him what he'd discovered - the professor didn't believe him till he'd seen it with his own eyes. A whole new era of biological life? A big discovery by anyone's standards. I've part-reverted the deletion, i.e. I've made it clear why it was such a big deal. BenjyB 18:30, 3 February 2011 (EST)

Mason's achievement is that he discovered the first fossil to come from rocks that were undoubtedly of a Pre-Cambrian era. Before that, the consensus of professional scientists was that there were no complex lifeforms before the Cambrian. Mason knew the rocks were Pre-Cambrian and he knew that what he found was a fossil. The fossil is named for the place it was found, Charnwood Forest, and for him: Charnia masoni. Very very few people have revolutionised a whole area of science as teenages - Mason is one of them. You can read about it in New Scientist, issue of April 14, 2007.

The text I wrote looks pretty much correct (bar one spelling mistake). I suggest you re-insert it in the article:
16 - Roger Mason discovers fossils from a whole era of complex life, the Ediacran (c.600 million years ago). His open-mindedness leads to an insight which overturns the limited preconceptions of earlier scientists, including Darwin, about life on Earth. BenjyB 19:26, 5 February 2011 (EST)

There have been no objections to this text so I've added it to the page. BenjyB 14:57, 6 February 2011 (EST)

And I've removed it again. When the site owner and a senior administrator agree something should be removed, and tell you to discuss it on the talk page, you don't just add it back in without their input. Wait for their response. JacobBShout out! 15:10, 6 February 2011 (EST)

1. When's he going to respond?

2. I thought this was an encyclopedia that gathers knowledge from the public, not one person's private website.

Your edits are heavy on opinion without links to back it up. "Roger Mason" is a name few have heard of, and perhaps for good reason. You'll need to back up your claim with far more than you have before it merits inclusion in this impressive list. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Responding to your request on my talk page, here are two key references and a brief commentary:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Charnia: Explains the importance of the fossils of the genus Charnia to studies of pre-Cambrian life and the important role that Roger Mason, as a teenager, played in discovering fossils within pre-Cambrian rocks.

Perhaps you can also explain what is meant by "600 million years ago," given the fact that Biblical inerrancy as a pretty big deal 'round these parts. Martyp 19:58, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Benjy, greatness is not apparent from your descriptions, or the links. At best it appears that some teenagers stumbled upon some fossils, of which there are millions, and then speculation by some professors followed. This hardly ranks with, for example, the achievements of the author of the Gospel of Mark, wbich is part of the most influential book of all time.--Andy Schlafly 20:27, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Perhaps the better comparison would be with Kathryn Aurora Gray. --CecilQ 21:29, 6 February 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly, you're missing the point: Mason's breakthrough was that as a schoolboy he recognised fossils in what he knew were pre-Cambrian rocks. The very strong consensus among professional / academic geologists at the time was that there were no complex life-forms in the pre-Cambrian - and hence no complex fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Mason, as a teenager, was not hide-bound by the preconceptions of the academic world. This exactly fits your own criterion of "the natural open-mindedness of young people before they may experience attempts to indoctrinate them towards certain worldviews".

As for the the scale of his achievement, there are 11 recognized geological eras and Mason discovered the first fossils recognized to definitely come from one of them and knew exactly what he had done (i.e. unlike the shephard discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls, who had no idea what the pieces of parchment were). That's a pretty big deal

Martyp, young earth creationism may be a big deal for some people round here but evidently not everybody: I've read enough CP to know that.

I'll give it an hour or so to let others respond further, then make the appropriate edit to the page. BenjyB 15:32, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Well, it's now two hours later and there haven't been any adverse comments. So as there are no further objections, I've restored the entry for Roger Mason. BenjyB 17:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Aschlafly, just taking the entry out isn't good enough. You need to give a reason. It's getting late on this side of the pond so I leave it up to your conscience whether you let another day go by with or without one of the outstanding teenage scientists in your encyclopedia. BenjyB 19:42, 21 February 2011 (EST)

What are you trying to achieve here BenjyB? Why not try making some substantive contributions instead of trying to push your bizarre agenda and insulting the owner and founder of the site? PeterUker 20:06, 21 February 2011 (EST)

He's gone. Just another UK troll from a ragwiki elsewhere.--Jpatt 20:19, 21 February 2011 (EST)

I only noticed that after I'd posted, sorry! What's a 'ragwiki'? Is that a UK term as I'm not familiar with it? PeterUker 20:30, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Just a gathering of like minded troublemakers from anonymous proxies who lead lives of lutz.--Jpatt 20:38, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Teenagers

I noticed that there are a few people on this list that are not teenagers and so must have been added by mistake - shall I go ahead and remove them so that the article's content matches its title? I don't want to do so without asking as I'm new here. BobG 12:55, 5 January 2011 (EST)

You haven't said what you think are mistakes. Go ahead and edit the content entry and let's what you think are mistakes.--Andy Schlafly 13:14, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Bob, the individuals listed with a non-teen year obviously had remarkable contributions as teenagers also.--Andy Schlafly 13:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that! Shall we rephrase their entries in order to make that clear, such as by listing the teenage achievements primarily (along with the age at that point) and giving the currently listed achievements as footnotes or 'also achieved' in parentheses)? If you can help me finding information on these teenage achievements I'd be delighted to take on the task! Thanks. BobG 14:45, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Apart from the interesting idea that 10 year-old Kathryn Aurora Gray is a teenager, is a source (from main page news report - which I added to entry) like CNN, owned by leftist mogul Ted Turner, with its liberal bias and support for the liberal agenda really a reliable source? The article claims the supernova happened 240 million years ago which is patent nonsense since that predates creation. CNN also claim that the girl’s father was an amateur astronomer, however, according to this source the girl’s father is a professional astronomer, so it seems extremely likely that this is an example of liberal deceit and professor values where unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge are being made on behalf of a child in a narcissistic frenzy of publicity seeking liberal arrogance. AmandaBunting 14:21, 6 January 2011 (EST)

The quibble is over the term "teenagers", and this suggestion could be made into a constructive one if we renamed the article to something like Great achievements by young people.

As a middle aged man, I am far from discouraging the next generation to make contributions. --Ed PoorTalk 12:45, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Zuckerberg "commercializes" Facebook

I'm curious about the choice of words for the Zuckerberg entry. Why "commercialized" instead of "created"? Is it because there's an argument over who really created the site? "Commercializing" doesn't seem like such a great achievement. EMorris 11:47, 7 February 2011 (EST)

My understanding is that Facebook was created for Harvard students, and existed in that form before it was commercialized. I agree that commercializing something is not as great an achievement as other items on the list.--Andy Schlafly 12:02, 7 February 2011 (EST)

A question about achievements

Most of the great achievements throughout history in the fields of art, culture, science and technology have been by teenagers. If this is so, the list of remarkble teenager should include only those whose achievement is impressive for a man (or woman!) of any age. Aschlafly, you trimmed away some teenagers who don't fall into this category, but there are more dubious case, like:

Cameron D

Please don't delete huge chucks of the page like that. First of all, the "age" question is already addressed in three places here on the talk page - did you read the discussion before editing? And if you claim the "19" info is incorrect please prove it - I've seen several sources that say 19 was the average age. It's just not cool to go around deleting information from articles when there is no need, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, so why don't you add some information to an existing page or create a new page, instead of tearing down existing articles? Thanks, Taj 21:23, 9 May 2013 (EDT)